ITO, Mandya V. Sri. H.S. Siddaraju, Bangalore

ITA 28/BANG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 2821114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUSAN THOMAS JOSE
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH B BEFORE SHRI N BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE RESIDENT AND SMT. P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.28/BA NG/2011 (ASST. YEAR - 2007-08) THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, MANDYA. . APPELLANT VS. SHRI H.S SIDDARAJU, BANGALORE RURAL, HOSUR BIDADI, BANGALORE RURAL. . RESPONDENT PAN NO.BCOPS 2856 P. APPELLANT BY : SMT. SUSAN THOMAS JOSE RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 28-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-12-2011 O R D E R PER P MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AT ITA NO.28/B/11 2 MYSORE DATED 21.10.2010. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE GENUINENESS OR OTHERWIS E OF THE DEPOSITS IN TO THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AS PER THE LAW. 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS G IVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO IN SPITE OF WHICH THERE WAS N O COMPLIANCE FROM ASSESSEES SIDE, DUE TO WHICH THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE REMITTED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERA TION. 4. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF SERV ICE OF THE NOTICE. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) AND ALSO UPON HEARING THE LEARNED DR, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY REMANDED THE FILE WIT H SIMILAR ITA NO.28/B/11 3 DIRECTIONS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DO NOT SEE AN Y REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28TH DEC, 2011. SD/- SD/- (N BARATHVAJA SANKAR) (P MADHAVI DEVI) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER VMS. BANGALORE DATED : 28/12/2011 COPY TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE REVENUE 3.THE CIT CONCERNED. 4.THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5.DR 6.GF BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR, I TAT, BANGALORE.